how to counter this anti-gun argument?

This is a discussion on how to counter this anti-gun argument? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Hi all,
As a result of the Virginia Tech shootings, I've been in a discussion with my very anti-gun sister. She wants all guns abolished ...

how to counter this anti-gun argument?

Hi all,

As a result of the Virginia Tech shootings, I've been in a discussion with my very anti-gun sister. She wants all guns abolished in the US. I made the point that if all guns were removed from the US, then criminals would use axes. If axes were gone, then criminals would use knives. If knives were gone, they'd use bats, etc...

An argument she made against this goes something like this:

"An unarmed person is much more able to defend themselves against an ax than a gun. A gun can be used to kill multiple people from 50 feet away in a short amount of time. But an ax must be used up close and people have time to react and either stop the threat or run away. Yada, yada, yada..."

While I disagree with her, I'm not sure how to respond to this argument. Can could someone please help me out? Thanks.

Just let her know if guns were abolished in the US criminals would use guns and law abiding citizens would use axes to defend themselves.

Drugs are illegal and we can't control it very well (and apparently they're easy enough to get); what makes guns so special that abolishing them would prevent the illegal importation and acquisition of them?

Make A Different Point...

Originally Posted by Chris17404

Hi all,

As a result of the Virginia Tech shootings, I've been in a discussion with my very anti-gun sister. She wants all guns abolished in the US. I made the point that if all guns were removed from the US, then criminals would use axes. If axes were gone, then criminals would use knives. If knives were gone, they'd use bats, etc...

An argument she made against this goes something like this:

"An unarmed person is much more able to defend themselves against an ax than a gun. A gun can be used to kill multiple people from 50 feet away in a short amount of time. But an ax must be used up close and people have time to react and either stop the threat or run away. Yada, yada, yada..."

While I disagree with her, I'm not sure how to respond to this argument. Can could someone please help me out? Thanks.

Chris

Then only the criminals would have guns...
See: Australia, England, Canada, Japan, etc...

Take away all guns then criminals will produce their own. Tell her she shouldn't drive as more people are killed and/or injured by autos. It doesn't matter what the weapon it is, its all about the use. We use them for protection while the criminals use for their own gratification or satisfaction. Also shed some light on the 21 step rule as there is a disadvantage at lessor distances.

Ask her how she thinks we could keep them out when tons of drugs and millions of "Undocumented Workers" enter the country illegally every year. Ask her if she thinks someone that is about to commit mulitple felonies is going to be concerned with violating a gun law. Tell her that a gun is the great equalizer. Criminals don't need guns. For the most part, they are bigger, stronger, and meaner than you are. The only thing that allows you to be on a level playing field with them is a gun. With a gun a 75 year old women is equal to an 19 y/o ex-con that spent the last 2 years pumping iron in the prison yard.

Also shed some light on the 21 step rule as there is a disadvantage at lessor distances.

She said ax, anyone can see that a mile away! Im glad she didnt say Tomowhawk .
The advantage to the 21 step rule, for a person attacking with a H2H weapon is. The person with the H2H weapon, has to have it drawn.

Not to sway the argument off of its main point. I concider myself better protected with a firearm, than any H2H weapon.

I will support gun control when you can guarantee all guns are removed from this planet. That includes military and law enforcement. When you can accomplish that, then I will be the last person to lay down my gun. Then I will carry the weapon that replaces the gun.

IMO, there is no way to win a rational argument with someone like that. they'll always come up with some half baked or plain crazy rationale why guns should be outlawed, so why bother? just smile and nod your head...

You cant argue that point because she's right. Regardless of the motive of the person wielding the gun, whether to protect life or to take it, this is best accomplished with a gun. Its primary function is to make killing more efficient, and it does just that. That is why we all choose to carry a gun rather than a knife or an axe. The effectiveness of edged and other weapons is always trumped by a gun.

I ran into this same argument today and had no answer, but you can bet I was armed at the time! We cannot deny the power and purpose of the gun, we can only use it for good to level the playing field against those who would use it for evil.

Shes using emotion in her argument you can't fight that. You can only ask for her to try something she has probably never done before. Talking does nothing. I take this side with those people.

Have you ever shot before?
"No"
Okay how can you be so against something you have never even done before?
"usually they loose it right here"

I then say. Well I have been shooting and on Thursday's I don't shoot. I have seen both sides researched the both arguments. Logically the answer I have come to is this one. Being pro 2A. I understand what its like to be unarmed. I know whats its like to be armed. You have never felt what its like to be armed and to actually take your own safety seriously. In today's world no one cares about the individual , supreme courts have ruled time and time again cops are not there to protect the individual only the community as a whole. You sister do not fall into that catagory. When something like this happens to YOU, you will pray that a guy like me is right around the corner walking the same street, being a lion in a lamb's skin. Because when the Bad Guy can't tell the Lions from the Sheep the whole flock is safer. Are you there to be devoured or do you want a choice in your life. An unarmed man/woman can only run from violence...that dosn't mean violence will run away. Most criminals go after the weak and running is seen to them as a sign of weekness giving them more of a pack mentality wanting to pursue you. Sure we can play the whose to blame game day long of what happened at VT, but what it comes down to there is only one person to blame, the Criminal. You can't stop insane people from planning and attempting to carry out insane things that in itself is insane. However, you can try to stop them from carrying out there insanity, and the way to do it is through the great equalizer.